Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 17:20, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 5:08 PM Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/18/18 2:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > I'm not for or against a longer Fedora lifecycle, but I think we need
> > > a stronger statement of what the problem is we're trying to address.
> > >
> > >  From your email:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:36:38PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > >> But there are some good cases for a longer lifecycle. For one thing,
> > >> this has been a really big blocker for getting Fedora shipped on
> > >> hardware. Second, there are people who really could be happily running
> > >> Fedora but since we don't check the tickbox, they don't even look at us
> > >> seriously. I'd love to change these things. To do that, we need
> > >> something that lasts for 36-48 months.
> > >
> > > this sounds like a very valid problem.
> > >
> > > But if this was fixed, what number of manufacturers would adopt Fedora
> > > and how many installations do they ship (eg per year)?  Could it be
> > > fixed in another way, like a special OEM Fedora release?
> >
> > And why haven't these manufacturers already adopted CentOS which is
> > definitely around longer than 36-48 months?
> >
>
> I think it's quite obvious why. No one can really influence what's in
> CentOS. Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is developed mostly behind

Those manufacturers can't really influence Windows any either. They
instead know that they will sell enough laptops with Windows on them
that they won't take a bath. There is also complicated financial
methods where Microsoft seems to supplement laptop sales so that it is
cheaper for them to ship with windows than to ship a system with no
OS. Centos also ships a lot of non-Red Hat kernels and modules which
meet various itches that people feel (xen, upstream lts, various
gluster/ceph/arm32/etc)

These are usually the bigger reasons why most larger OEM's haven't
been interested in putting CentOS or even Ubuntu on a large set of
systems. They know that the number of systems they will sell are at
most 1% of all sales.. and there isn't a large enough incentive to do
the various work they need to do that. So you end up needing a vendor
who is going to go all in (the System76's) or you get someone who is
going to offer a specific model set they know they can do
cost-effectively but aren't going to put too much into it. [AKA if the
engineers working on it love MCC Linux.. then its going to be MCC
Linux.]

In the end, for Fedora to be on a laptop by default someone is going
to have to say 'we are betting the farm to do this and will do the
work to make that happen'. I also think that we are focusing on one
part of the original proposal... It wasn't the entire reason for doing
some sort of LTS somewhere. It is just the one we can probably pick
holes in the easiest :).


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux